Browse
Submit Data
Databases
API
Help

Dataset Information

58 Views

0 Connections

0 Citations

0 Reanalyses

0 Downloads

Omics score: 0

Complete versus culprit-only revascularisation in ST elevation myocardial infarction with multi-vessel disease.

ABSTRACT:

SUBMITTER: Bravo CA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6481381 | biostudies-literature | 2017 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Json Xml

Publications

Complete versus culprit-only revascularisation in ST elevation myocardial infarction with multi-vessel disease.

Bravo Claudio A CA Hirji Sameer A SA Bhatt Deepak L DL Kataria Rachna R Faxon David P DP Ohman E Magnus EM Anderson Kevin L KL Sidi Akil I AI Sketch Michael H MH Zarich Stuart W SW Osho Asishana A AA Gluud Christian C Kelbæk Henning H Engstrøm Thomas T Høfsten Dan Eik DE Brennan James M JM

The Cochrane database of systematic reviews 20170503

<h4>Background</h4>Multi-vessel coronary disease in people with ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) is common and is associated with worse prognosis after STEMI. Based on limited evidence, international guidelines recommend intervention on only the culprit vessel during STEMI. This, in turn, leaves other significantly stenosed coronary arteries for medical therapy or revascularisation based on inducible ischaemia on provocative testing. Newer data suggest that intervention on both the cul ...[more]

PMID: 28470696

Similar Datasets

Culprit Vessel Only Versus Complete Revascularisation in Patients with ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction - Should we Stay or Stage?

Project description:Multivessel coronary artery disease (MVCAD) is common in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), thereby negatively affecting mortality and outcome. Currently there is increasing evidence that complete revascularisation should be considered in haemodynamically stable patients. There are few larger randomised controlled trials available showing a lower risk of major adverse cardiac events after complete revascularisation, mainly driven by a reduction of repeat revascularisation. However, these trials are not adequately powered to show a mortality benefit or reduced risk of myocardial infarction. As there are several possible strategies, the presence of MVCAD often poses a therapeutic dilemma for interventional cardiologists and there is still ongoing debate on when and how to perform complete revascularisation. Pending further trials that may clarify which strategy is best, an individualised approach should be adopted.

| S-EPMC6234493 | biostudies-literature

Percutaneous Intervention in ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction: Culprit-only or Complete Revascularization?

Project description:The best approach of multivessel coronary artery disease in the context of acute myocardial infarction with ST segment elevation and primary percutaneous coronary intervention is one of the main reasons for controversy in cardiology. Although the main global guidelines do not recommend routine complete revascularization in these patients, recent randomized clinical trials have demonstrated benefit of this approach in reducing cardiovascular outcomes. For this reason, an adequate review of this evidence is essential in order to establish scientifically based strategy and achieve better outcomes for these patients who present with acute myocardial infarction. This review aims to present objectively the most recent evidence available on this topic.

| S-EPMC5783441 | biostudies-other

Deep Learning Networks Accurately Detect ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction and Culprit Vessel.

Project description:Early diagnosis of acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and early determination of the culprit vessel are associated with a better clinical outcome. We developed three deep learning (DL) models for detecting STEMIs and culprit vessels based on 12-lead electrocardiography (ECG) and compared them with conclusions of experienced doctors, including cardiologists, emergency physicians, and internists. After screening the coronary angiography (CAG) results, 883 cases (506 control and 377 STEMI) from internal and external datasets were enrolled for testing DL models. Convolutional neural network-long short-term memory (CNN-LSTM) (AUC: 0.99) performed better than CNN, LSTM, and doctors in detecting STEMI. Deep learning models (AUC: 0.96) performed similarly to experienced cardiologists and emergency physicians in discriminating the left anterior descending (LAD) artery. Regarding distinguishing RCA from LCX, DL models were comparable to doctors (AUC: 0.81). In summary, we developed ECG-based DL diagnosis systems to detect STEMI and predict culprit vessel occlusion, thus enhancing the accuracy and effectiveness of STEMI diagnosis.

| S-EPMC8960131 | biostudies-literature

Complete versus culprit only revascularization in ST-elevation myocardial infarction-a perspective on recent trials and recommendations.

Project description:The presence of multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD) is strongly associated with higher 30-day mortality, reduced myocardial reperfusion success, reinfarction, and occurrence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) at 1 year compared with single-vessel CAD. Despite higher morbidity and mortality in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and coexistent multivessel CAD, major guidelines recommended against percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) on non-culprit lesions at the time of primary PCI in patients with STEMI who are hemodynamically stable. The presence of multivessel CAD often poses a therapeutic dilemma for interventional cardiologists. A few larger scale randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses have been conducted. The conclusions regarding multivessel PCI generally trend towards lower risk of MACE, repeat revascularization, with similar risks of recurrent myocardial infarction (MI) and mortality. However, none of the RCTs were adequately powered for hard outcomes of death and MI.

| S-EPMC5542970 | biostudies-other

Comprehensive Review of Complete Versus Culprit-only Revascularization for Multivessel Disease in ST-segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction.

Project description:Several organizations have developed guidelines for the management of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). However, the optimal strategy regarding revascularization in the setting of multivessel disease, specifically with regards to culprit vessel versus complete revascularization, continues to evolve. While previous observational studies promoted culprit vessel-only intervention in patients with STEMI, recent randomized controlled trials suggest potential benefits with multivessel revascularization, either at the time of the index event or in a staged fashion, in patients without cardiogenic shock. This may be due to the known instability of non-culprit lesions in the setting of acute coronary syndrome, and the diffuse coronary processes involved. As additional literature examines culprit vessel versus multivessel revascularization strategies, clinicians continue to be tasked with determining optimal treatment plans for their patients and understanding the factors that promote selected revascularization strategies. This review summarizes and discusses observational studies, randomized control trials and current guidelines in order to evaluate optimal reperfusion strategies for patients presenting with STEMI in the setting of multivessel disease.

| S-EPMC9524594 | biostudies-literature

Thirty-day outcomes of in-hospital multi-vessel versus culprit-only revascularization strategy for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction with multivessel coronary disease.

Project description:BackgroundMany studies have demonstrated the benefit of complete multivessel revascularization versus culprit-only intervention in patients of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel coronary artery disease. However, only a few single-center retrospective studies were performed on small Chinese cohorts. Our study aims to demonstrate the advantage of multivessel percutaneous intervention (PCI) strategy on 30-day in-hospital outcomes to patients with STEMI and multivessel disease in larger Chinese population.MethodsFrom the Improving Care for Cardiovascular Disease in China-Acute Coronary Syndrome (CCC-ACS) project, 5935 patients with STEMI and multivessel disease undergoing PCI and hospitalized for fewer than 30 days were analyzed. After 5: 1 propensity score matching, 3577 patients with culprit-only PCI and 877 with in-hospital multivessel PCI were included. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular event (MACCE), defined as a composite of myocardial infarction, all-cause death, stent thrombosis, heart failure, and stroke.ResultsMultivariable logistic regression analysis revealed that in-hospital multivessel PCI was associated with lower risk of 30-day MACCE (adjusted OR = 0.75, 95% CI: 0.57-0.98, P = 0.032) than culprit-only PCI and conferred no increased risk of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, stroke, or bleeding. Subgroup analysis showed that MACCE reduction was observed more often from patients with trans-femoral access (OR = 0.34, 95% CI: 0.15-0.74) than with trans-radial access (OR = 0.87, 95% CI: 0.66-1.16, P for interaction = 0.017).ConclusionsThe in-hospital multivessel PCI strategy was associated with a lower risk of 30-day MACCE than culprit-only PCI in patients with STEMI and multivessel coronary artery disease.

| S-EPMC10412540 | biostudies-literature

Fractional flow reserve-guided complete revascularization versus culprit-only revascularization in acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and multi-vessel disease patients: a meta-analysis and systematic review.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Approximately 30-50% patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STMEI) were found to have non-infarct-related coronary artery (IRA) disease, which was significantly associated with worse prognosis. However, challenges still remain for these patients: which non-infarct-related lesion should be treated and when should the procedure be performed? The present study aims to investigate Fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided complete revascularization (CR) in comparison to culprit-only revascularization (COR) in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multi-vessel disease (MVD). METHODS:Three appropriate randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were selected from the PubMed/Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane library /CENTRAL databases. 1631 patients (688 patients underwent FFR-guided CR and 943 patients underwent COR) following-up 12-44 months was evaluated. RESULTS:FFR-guided CR significantly reduced major adverse cardiac event (MACE) (OR 0.47, 95% CI: 0.35-0.62, P < 0.00001) and ischemia-driven repeat revascularization (OR 0.36, 0.26-0.51, P < 0.00001), as compared to COR. However, there is no difference in all-cause mortality (OR 1.24, 0.65-2.35, P = 0.51). CONCLUSIONS:In patients with STEMI and MVD, FFR-guided CR is better than COR in terms of MACE and ischemia-driven repeat revascularization, while there are almost similar in all-cause mortality. TRIAL REGISTRATION:All analyses were based on previous published studies, thus no ethical approval and patient consent are required COMPARE-ACUTE trial number NCT01399736 ; DANAMI-3-PRIMULTI trial number NCT01960933 .

| S-EPMC6397458 | biostudies-literature

Culprit vessel only versus multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease.

Project description:BackgroundThe best strategy for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients with multivessel disease (MVD), who underwent primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in the acute phase, is not well established.ObjectivesOur goal was to conduct a meta-analysis comparing culprit vessel only percutaneous coronary intervention (culprit PCI) with multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention (MV-PCI) for treatment of patients with STEMI and MVD.MethodsPubmed, Elsevier, Embase, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) databases were systematically searched for randomized and nonrandomized studies comparing culprit PCI and MV-PCI strategies during the index procedure. A meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.1 (Cochrane Center, Denmark).ResultsFour randomized and fourteen nonrandomized studies involving 39,390 patients were included. MV-PCI strategy is associated with an increased short-term mortality (OR: 0.50, 95% CI: 0.32 to 0.77, p = 0.002), long-term mortality (OR: 0.52, 95% CI: 0.36 to 0.74, p<0.001), and risk of renal dysfunction (OR: 0.77, 95% CI: 0.61 to 0.97, p = 0.03) compared with culprit PCI strategy, while it reduced the incidence of revascularization (OR: 2.65, 95% CI: 1.80 to 3.90, p<0.001).ConclusionsThis meta-analysis supports current guidelines which indicate that the non-culprit vessel should not be treated during the index procedure.

| S-EPMC3961318 | biostudies-literature

Culprit vessel only vs immediate complete revascularization in patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Project description:Although multivessel coronary artery disease has been associated with poor health outcomes in patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), the optimal approach to revascularization remains uncertain. The objective of this review was to determine the benefits and harms of culprit vessel only vs immediate complete percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with acute STEMI. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Teams of 2 reviewers, independently and in duplicate, screened titles and abstracts, completed full-text reviews, and abstracted data. We calculated pooled risk ratios (RRs) and associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using random-effect models for nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), revascularization, cardiovascular mortality, all-cause mortality, and adverse events, and used the GRADE approach to rate confidence in estimates of effect. Of 341 patients randomized to complete revascularization and followed to study conclusion, 31 experienced revascularization, as did 80 of 324 randomized to culprit vessel only revascularization (RR: 0.35, 95% CI: 0.24-0.53). Ten patients in the complete revascularization group and 28 patients in the culprit vessel only revascularization group experienced nonfatal MI (RR: 0.35, 95% CI: 0.17-0.72). All-cause mortality and cardiac deaths did not differ between groups (RR: 0.69, 95% CI: 0.40-1.21 for all-cause mortality; RR: 0.48, 95% CI: 0.22-1.04 for cardiac deaths). Pooled data from 3 RCTs suggest that immediate complete revascularization probably reduces revascularization in patients with acute STEMI; although results suggest possible benefits on MI and death, confidence in estimates is low.

| S-EPMC6647587 | biostudies-literature

Correction: Culprit Vessel Only versus Multivessel Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients Presenting with ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction and Multivessel Disease

Project description: Not available

| S-EPMC4069192 | biostudies-literature